About time Obama. Please be aggresive, nobody sane wants Hillary as President.

Translation:
"So far what i've been doing hasn't been working; the public just isn't buying the vague, touch-feely, hope and optimism BS; so I have to start getting nasty."

!MOBAGA!

Obama: I'm moving into new phase of campaign...

Ooooh.... I bet Hillary's shaking in her boots.

About time Obama. Please be aggresive, nobody sane wants Hillary as President.

Posted by: nisleib | October 11, 2007 4:06 PM

nisleib,

I agree but if Hill wins the nomination I'm going to support her because the top two Repubs (Mitty and Rudy) scare the crap out of me.

President Hillary would have to answer to the Dems (Iraq, Iran) and you know the Repubs would be screaming at her because all of the rightwing water carriers are trained like Pavlov's dog to bark at the Clintons at the drop of a hat.

Peace...

So much for the politics of Hope huh?

Barack, there's nothing new about the fact that, before you came to the Senate and had to vote on anything, you opposed the war in Iraq. It's all you've been talking about for seven months because you have nothing else to say. The only thing that appears to be new about this phase of your campaign is that you've ditched the politics of hope and replaced it with the politics of desperation.

So, you were against the invasion of Iraq. What else can you do. HA HA. What have you done for IL? More of the same for this country?

So, you were against the invasion of Iraq. What else can you do. HA HA. What have you done for IL? More of the same for this country? I don't think you have to worry about a running mate.

More to the point, would Hillary pick him as HER VP.

I think not. How many chief execs want to be backstopped by somebody who really wants their job bad. It just doesn't make for great relationships.
Al might be an idea--he's too old to be a huge threat and there's all that environmental hoopla. Bill R maybe, with or without the Hispanic vote, as a concession to the antiwar left. He's the only one who seems to want to get us out
Iraq.

Posted by: nisleib | October 11, 2007 4:06 PM

nisleib,

If Hill wins the nomination I'm going to support her because the top two Repubs (Rudy & Mitty) scare the human waste out of me.

President Hillary would be beholden to the Dems (Iraq, Iran) and the Republican water carriers are trained like Pavlov's dog to bark at the Clinton's at the drop of a hat.

John E:

I just hope it doesn't come to that.

Will I support Hillary if she wins the nomination? No, probably not. I may vote for a third party candidate or I may stay home.

I think its funny when people try to criticize Obama for attacking Hillary (which he should do) and say he is "abandoning his message of hope." Atleast he has hope! Hillary has what? Arrogance? and a fake laugh? I think it is clear that Hillary wants to continue this war and expand it into Iran.
Support Obama and end this war! Support Clinton and continue the war!

Strong and uninformed opinions unite. Go Hillary! Power to the status quo. Power to the lobbyists. The little guy is an idiot therefore you have a shot. You were first lady!!! Go Hillary!!!

Obama was against the Iraq vote because he didn't have to actually vote. We will never know what he would have actually done.

As far as Iran he doesn't have a leg to stand on in going after Clinton. Not only did he duck the vote but he co-sponsored a bill that would have done almost the same thng back in April.

The "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

"The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."

So far, Do-Nothing Sen. Obama has been Do-Nothing presidential candidate. The Des Moines, Iowa, dog catcher has more experience than Obama. Probably more on the ball, too.

!MOBAGA!

What does that mean?

A "new phase" in the campaign?

Does Obama mean a phase when he starts pulling ahead of Hillary?

Anyone who has been paying attention this campaign season can see that Obama's performance has been lackluster.

He and his handlers seem to think that the country wants someone starry-eyed and hopeful, and that's true. But we also need a fighter, someone who doesn't take any bull from anyone, someone who doesn't seem *too* optimistic. After all, we have a guy in the white house who is pure optimism, and look where that got us. And in 2004, Kerry's case of Senatorial decorum got him swiftboated

There are times Obama is on the stump when he absolutely mezmerizes, because he cuts loose. I haven't seen that yet in his one on one interviews or in his community forums. He needs to start adding passion to that intellectualism.

the Clinton posse is the toughest in the country when it comes to politics. What I like about them is that I know they will go head to head with Guiliani when it comes to the general. It's time that Obama start showing that he's no chump.

At the beginning, I was looking for a reason not to vote for Obama, but I couldn't find one: he came out strong and he was my guy. Now, though, I'm looking for a new reason *to* vote for him.

Alternate translation:

"My writers gave this really cool stuff about hope and optimism and a new approach to politics and how I'm an 'outsider'... well then people started paying attention to my record in Illinois, and then there were the bazillion dollar celebrity fundraisers closed to the press... so no way that could work."

"So then they told me to talk about foreign policy... well some people were shocked, others said it was unoriginal and some people even laughed at me. Boy, that was a lousy idea!"

So now I think we've got the winning formula. It's this:
'America, do you REALLY want to vote for that b****?!'"

"Oh, did I mention, I didn't vote for the war?"

!GAMOBA!

"So much for the politics of Hope huh?" - Vinny

Twice now Hillary has used some variation of this line to avoid having to talk about any thing of substance between here and Sen. Obama. Simply hight lighting differences of opinion or policy does not constitute going "negative." This line of thinking is ridiculous. Since when did it become acceptable to shrug off any criticism of your favored candidate, no matter how justified, as attack politics?

You mean this has been the "substance" part of the campaign?

I guess it was the swimsuit competition.

"Oh, did I mention, I didn't vote for the war?"

!GAMOBA!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 6:39 PM

You really need to get a life, all that pent up anger is bad for you.

Goodluck to Senator Obama!

What more does the American electorate need to know about Hillary Clinton in order to deny her the privelege of serving as our POTUS?

Instead of addressing the issues to which her opponents address, she continues to triangulate and attack their integrity.

Vote for freedom!
Support Ron Paul!
www.ronpaul.org

I am truly disappointed in both Hillary and Barak because they both have been hush-mouthed when it comes to ending the war in Iraq and actively working to bring our troops home. Their campaign speeches are just one big blur of nothing substantive. Moreover, this whole "attack Iran" situation is being orchestrated behind the scenes by the neo-cons and their minions who have infected the Democratic platform (by the way, What is the democratic platform?) Both Republicans and Democratic candidates, except for Ron Paul and Richardson, are beating war drums to attack Iran. Obama is still walking a thin line between the "old guard" hawks (of which Hillary is a member)and some vague notion of hope out of this quagmire.

The only thing we know about Barack Obama is, his wife makes quick left turns while driving a van and he is tardy paying parking tickets.

Is this presindential material?

Oh,and his middle name is Hussein.

Paulo

Strong and uninformed opinions unite. Go Hillary! Power to the status quo. Power to the lobbyists. The little guy is an idiot therefore you have a shot. You were first lady!!! Go Hillary!!

I've voted for Perot, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. She is a nightmare, a total and complete nightmare. I don't think people realize that Hillary's problem is not just with Republicans. If she is so inevitable, why are Obama, Edwards, and Richardson still polling with a combined 37% nationally according to realclearpolitics.com. Why do they combine for 56% percent of the Iowa polling data??? That's a boatload of resistance to the Hillary trance we're all supposed to be under!

Obama is going to win Iowa and the Hillary house of cards is going to come tumbling down when people realize what a fraud she is. That Apple 1984 ad spoof that leaked out in the early part of the year will prove to be highly prophetic.

Obama, please be more aggressive and assertive. You can do that without being ugly. Don't be reluctant to defend your positions loudly. For example, your position on meeting with Iran without conditions has now been taken by Hillary/Bill. She have to slam her hard on that flip flop, especially since she said you were naive for taking that position.

Hillary libels Barack by calling him naive. Now she tries to justify breaking a written pledge by participating in the Michigan primary. She remains on the ballot while her campaign team says she is not participating. She is using a broken pledge to gain political advantage. She has no real honor.

Whatever you need to tell yourself Tom S. Like it or not Hillary will be the dem noinee and you will either have to support her or her GOP opponent.

Hillary does not exhibit any moral courage, that I've seen. Conversely, in 2002, Senator Obama spoke out publicly and strongly, against this 'rash, dumb, ideological war of choice'. He did so even though it could have jeopardized his Senate run. He had the moral courage to speak out, even when the Congress was moving in lock-step behind President Bush in banging the drum to go to war. Obama stood up and SPOKE TRUTH TO POWER.

Obama doesn't pander to any audience. Other politicians tell specific audiences exactly what they want to hear, even if it is wrong for the country. Obama speaks the hard truths to all constituencies he addresses, even if it hurts. America is facing a lot of hard truths these days, and Obama stands out as a unique leader who doesn't sugarcoat the truth. The stakes are too high.

Judgment - Zbignew Brzezinski, one of the most distinguished foreign policy experts in America today, recently formally endorsed him for president, and he said he did so because of Obama's good judgment. He noted how President Kennedy was advised by those all around him to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yet, this young, wise president had the good judgment to say no to them, and use a naval blockade, instead. He saved us all from an all-out nuclear war! THAT is the good judgment Brzezinski is talking about.

The wisdom that Senator Obama has shown is what our country needs in a president. In contrast, Senators Clinton, Biden, Edwards and Dodd ALL voted for the war and Sen. Clinton didn't even take the time to read the 90 page NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), that was given to all senators, even with 10 days to read the report, before casting the most important vote of her life. That is a double tragedy. First, not reading the report before sending other people's kids off to die or get maimed in a war represents a gross dereliction of duty. Second, already planning her run for the presidency and fearing looking weak, made a POLITICAL CALCULATION and cast her vote for the war.

So, let's see... The single most important vote of her life, which SHE GOT WRONG, ushered in the single most devastating foreign policy blunder in American history. I do not trust her judgment, as she failed the test on the most important vote. She doesn't have it.

Also, if being first lady in the governor's mansion for 8 years and another 8 years in the White House qualifies as relevant 'experience' to be president, then why not Laura Bush for president? How preposterous is that? This is how the Clinton Machine spins and manipulates perceptions, with Bill Clinton going around calling her 'the most qualified non-incumbent in all his years of voting'. I guess if you repeat something enough times, people believe it. And if one of them is not on the MSM, the other one is, piggybacking each other and hogging the media airwaves, 24/7 in this tag team dog and pony show to saturate American's minds with only Clintons...their images, voices, everywhere you look. I just hope the people in Iowa, NH and South Carolina have their blitzkrieg filters up and running. And I don't think they take kindly to that Machine, along with the MSM, telling them who they're going to vote for.

The single most important quality in a president is judgment. He's got it. Time served in Washington does not equate to good judgment, as the other long-time Washington insiders have proven. In Obama, we have someone who will unite our country and the world.

"Posted by: Paulo | October 11, 2007 11:57 PM"

Oh, and Paulo continues to prove that he is a racist.

It's amazing how many people feel qualified to slam Obama for doing nothing, knowing nothing, etc. They clearly know nothing about him except what they occasionally see in the mainstream media.

Do some research before shouting your opinions from the rooftops. Obama is very accomplished and experienced, and his resume includes much more important formative activities than years of meaningless Washington posturing. Don't tell me I'm wrong. Look into it. Look into what the guy has done with his life before you judge him. Study the facts, not the Bill O'Reilly talking points list. Is that so much to ask?